Judging by some of the language issuing from the White House, one might assume that the main focus of the Constitution is presidential power. But what does the Constitution actually say about presidential power? Not much, as it turns out. The modern presidency is the product of history, not the design of the Founding Fathers.

When we look at the modern presidency and then look at the text of the Constitution, it seems amazing that so much should have grown from so little. Article II of the Constitution is devoted to the presidency, but it is surprisingly uninformative. The whole article can be read aloud in about 2 minutes. Less than half of it actually relates to the powers of the office, as opposed to election procedures and other mechanics.

Article II begins by saying that the "executive power" is vested in the president. President Bush and other supporters of unlimited presidential power place a huge reliance on these two words. This would be more persuasive if we knew just what the framers had in mind. Unfortunately, the framers apparently didn't have a clear definition of executive power.

James Madison himself admitted that no one had "yet been able to discriminate and define, with sufficient certainty" the scope of executive power. Certainly, there is no reason to believe (as some enthusiastic advocates of presidential power argue) that the presidency was modeled on the much despised powers of King George III.

Beyond making it clear that the president is the government's CEO, Article II contains surprisingly few specifics. (In contrast, Article I delineates the powers of Congress in great detail.) The president is designated as the commander in chief (of the army, not of the country). He is directed to "take Care that the laws be faithfully executed." Of course, this is a duty to follow the laws, not to break them whenever he thinks it would be in the national interest.

There are also other powers, some important and others remarkably trivial: The power to propose treaties and nominate officials for Senate approval, to issue pardons, to give the State of the Union address, to receive ambassadors, and to get written opinions from Cabinet members. The framers apparently felt that they had to give the president express authority merely so he could get his subordinates' written opinions or recommend legislation to Congress. The implication seems to be that the inherent powers of the office were less than awesome.

Outside of the language of the Constitution itself, evidence of original intent is conflicting and hard to interpret. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson: "Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh." He also observed "a century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side of any question." Since then, we've had another 50 years of scholarly and political debate, which has been equally inconclusive.

Faced with a cryptic constitutional text and obscure historical evidence, the U.S. Supreme Court has tried to achieve a pragmatic balance between the branches of government. The most important single case about presidential power involved President Harry Truman's seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War -- done in the name of national security and inherent executive power. The Supreme Court rebuffed this claim in no uncertain terms. The lesson of the case is that the president's powers are strongest when he has explicit statutory authority and weakest when he acts in opposition to Congress. Where Congress has not spoken directly to the specific issue, the court looks to see if Congress historically approved of similar presidential actions. Through this analysis, the court maintains the historic balance of power between the branches.

Contrary to the fervent claims of some acolytes of the imperial presidency, presidential power is far from being unlimited. Presidential power has the great virtues of efficiency and decisiveness. These are important virtues in a dangerous and fast-changing world. But as the framers understood well, all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our constitutional system maintains a balance between efficiency and liberty through a series of checks and balances, not by placing complete trust in any one government official.